What happened to
the sunshine? Tuesday was such a pretty day. Seems, though, that spring was
teasing us, and March will come in like the proverbial lion. We apparently got precipitation
overnight, but all was dry this morning, despite scary TV coverage of
fender-benders and icy bridges. Jordan and I got out for a quick grocery run,
and then I was in for the day.
It was a soup for
lunch, a good book, and a long nap kind of a day. The kind of day when I sit at
my desk with a sweater around my shoulders and my prayer shawl draped across my
lap. Talk about stereotypes of a little old lady! All I need is a cat and some
African violets. Still, it’s the kind of day when you never really get toasty
warm.
I have a bad case
of the lazies. Spent the late day mostly reading—yes, some in social media—but the
book that should really capture my attention is the one I’m supposedly writing.
I wrote 500 words, far short of my daily goal but that’s okay. This is the book
I tell myself I’m not being compulsive about finishing. I did have a revelation
today—about the naming of characters. The protagonist is Cordelia Smith—she makes
a fuss about that highfalutin first name with such a simple last night. I gave
her Cordy for a nickname, but it never sounded right to my ear. So today I
played with nicknames and came up with Delia—I have known women named Delia.
But then it occurred to me that in childhood her name might have become Dilly in
the speech of other children. I think that fits her personality. At least I’ll
try it on her for a while.
Dilly is an
assistant to a haughty, pretentious TV chef (with no real reasons for
pretension) whose name is Irene Foxglove. I like the play of a chef, fixing food,
with a last name that is also a poisonous plant. Too much? I think I even have
a title for this fledgling novel—either Saving
Irene or Protecting Irene. Opinions
welcome. See the conundrums authors deal with, in comparison to weighty matters
like the future of our planet?
And since I’m
worrying about language in my writing, I’ll share a concern. My church, in its
drive to be inclusive (which I much admire and applaud), has announced a change
in wording. The word “Creator” may be substituted for “Father”—it’s that gender
thing, you know. But if you feel comfortable with “Father,” in say the
Doxology, you are welcome to say it. I’m just old-fashioned enough that I do
prefer the traditional language. I even wrote a note to the senior minister
expressing my hope that in the rush to be inclusive, church leaders would also
consider the flow and beauty of the language.
The words of a traditional
hymn, “The Church’s One Foundation,” were changed several years ago to be
gender neutral. Here’s the original version:
The church's one foundation
Is Jesus Christ her Lord;
She is his new creation
By water and the Word.
From heaven he came and sought her
To be his holy bride;
With his own blood he bought her,
And for her life he died.
Is Jesus Christ her Lord;
She is his new creation
By water and the Word.
From heaven he came and sought her
To be his holy bride;
With his own blood he bought her,
And for her life he died.
Well,
you can see how that upset the gender-neutral applecart. That’s the version I grew
up with, and I cannot quote the revised to you. I can only tell you it violates
grammatical rules such as subject/pronoun agreement, is awkward, and grates on
my ear. It seems significant to me that I could not find the revised lyrics
online. I’d like to go on record as believing in the generic pronoun.
So
call me traditional, a little old huddled in her prayer shawl. Change is good—but
not all the time. I’ll be watching what happens to the language.